BHARAT RAM Vs. SUNAINA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment of learned District Judge. Giridih dated 25.5.2010 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 10 of 2009 whereby and whereunder he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Additional Munsif 1. Giridih dated 14.1.2009 in Title Suit No. 71 of 2006 and directed him to decide the petition filed on 25.1.2007, 16.4.2007, 1.4.2008 and 30.10.2008 by opposite parties.

(2.) It appears that O.P. No. 2, namely, Satya Prakash Rai has filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 71 of 2006 for declaration of right, title and interest of Narayan Prasad Ral over suit land pertaining to Khata No. 134, Khewat No. 26, Plot No. 147 having an area of 48 dismals in village Dhendhadih, P.S. Deori. district-Giridih. It is stated that plaintiff/O.P. No. 2 is a power of attorney holder of aforesaid Sri Narayan Prasad Ral who executed a registered deed of general power of attorney in his favour on 29.4.2006. It then appears that during the pendency of suit plaintiff/O.P. No. 2 sold suit property to Sunaina Rai (O.P. No. 1) by executing a registered sale deed dated 27.11.2006. It appears that thereafter both the opposite parties jointly filed applications under Order I, Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC on 25.1.2007 for impleading Sunaina Rai in the aforesaid suit. It also appears that O.P. No. 1, namely, Sunaina Rai had also filed an application under Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC for substituting her as plaintiff because she purchased the property and become absolute owner during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) It appears that petitioners, who were defendants in the Court below, had contested the aforesaid application and submitted that O.P. No. 2, had wrongly sold suit land to his own mother without taking leave of the Court. Thus the aforesaid transfer is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It Is further submitted that after execution of the sale deed, the aforesaid Narayan Prasad Rai revoked general power of Attorney and aforesaid deed of revocation reveals that Satya Prakash Rai (O.P. No. 2) disclosed to Narayan Prasad Rai that he had not executed any document in furtherance of the authority given to him by general power of attorney. Accordingly, it is submitted by petitioners/defendants that the sale deed in question is a forged and fabricated document. It is also submitted by petitioners/defendants that consideration money has not been paid to Narayan Prasad Rai. Thus on that ground also, the sale deed appears to be void ab initio.